[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #802
b-greek-digest Thursday, 27 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 802
In this issue:
lang. of Jesus
lang. of Jesus
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: lang. of Jesus
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: BG: Hort and AlephB
Easter Challenge
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: Easter Challenge
Astronomy and Nativity
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
"First of the Weeks"
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Easter Events
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
Re: lang. of Jesus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Cepuch <pcepuch@diag1.iac.honeywell.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 0:01:24 MST
Subject: lang. of Jesus
Lindsay Whaley wrote:
"It is manifestly not the case that the natural or automatic reflex of a culture 'under siege' is an attempt to maintain a unique identity, especially when
it comes to a language identity. In many cases, groups fight for the survival
of their ancestral language and in many cases they readily relinquish it(and
even here language assimilation is not necessarily linked to cultural
assimilation).
Yes, I agree that perhaps my choice of words here muddied the waters. To make
a general staement that something is natural or automatic in historical
terms is asking for trouble. But in regard to the history of the Jewish
people, that has certainly been an issue(assimilation). And as I stated in
an earlier post, I agree that Israel was/is a diverse multi-cultural,
multi-lingual people. However, I still maintain that for those who took
Torah seriously, the link to Hebrew is vital. I think that viewing the gospel
accounts(esp. the synoptics)of the life of Jesus in these terms not only
gives us a clearer picture but also a sense of the very power of his words
to the Jewish mind to whom He was sent(Matt. 15:24)
Lindsay Whaley wrote:
Therefore, I don't find Peter's conclusion from his premise above--that the
Jewish people of the first century A.D. must have been fighting to maintain
Hebrew in order to remain distinct from their various overlords--very com-
pelling.
Oh well, can't win 'em all :) Again, I believe that I didn't express myself
too well. Perhaps it would be better to change the Hebrew in the paragraph
above to Torah(in which Hebrew is important), and then say that not ALL the
people in the land were fighting to maintain Torah etc., but there certainly
must have been one or two:) . The second temple period was a highly
charged time when Jesus came on the scene-much messianic fervor and much
diversity in opinion and practice etc. From the records we have though, we
can see that Jesus' family was very observant and that His discussions on
Torah were very orthodox, and we see him using Hebrew idiom(such as the
good/evil eye which had to do with generosity/stinginess), as well as
evidence of Hebrew narrative "dressed" in raw Greek translation much like
the Septuagint.Example: Kai eyeveto(egeneto)+ verb
VaYHI(Heb. ) + verb = And it came to pass etc.
So, there seems to be an observable Hebrew link to the synoptics that can
be found if one is looking for it. Now, I believe there is a mention of
an original Hebrew "sayings Of Jesus" by Matthew that was translated into
Greek-I can`t remember what the citation is, but I'll look it up...
So, it would seem that Jews speaking Hebrew during this era is not unreason-
able, but alas very unpopular at this particular time.
Thanks for the response,
Peter Cepuch
------------------------------
From: Pete Cepuch <pcepuch@diag1.iac.honeywell.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 1:07:08 MST
Subject: lang. of Jesus
David Gowler wrote:
(concerning Brad Young's book on the Parables of Jesus)
Since a chapter of a forthcoming book I'm writing deals with this issue,
I would be glad to do this(briefly)either on or off-list--or send you a copy
of the chapter itself. It is a complex issue, complicated by the fact
that tranlating something back into any language is not only hypothetical,
but virtually impossible.
Thanks, that is kind of you to offer-I would enjoy reading the chapter you
mention and the whole book as well. I agree that translating back...is
very difficult, but I would also add that Dr. Lindsay has made good progress
in the 50 years that he has been working on this very thing in his studies
of the synoptic gospels.
David Gowler wrote:
At any rate, Young's arguments about Jesus being a "proto rabbi"are interesting, but are complicated by the fact that he is anachronistically merging forms
and content 2 and 1/2 centuries apart. Jesus' parables,although a form of
mashal are different from the rabbinic parables that are used for exegesis
of the Torah. They tend to support the status quo whereas Jesus' parables
tend to subvert it. The Amoraim also had a more comprehensive form for their
parables, and Young's search for the corresponding nimshal in the parables
of Jesus finds almost none.
He is left to postulate that Jesus' parables are an early form of which he
can cite no other examples. To back his claim, he seeks to prove that
Jesus told his parables in Hebrew, which, once again, I find very
unconvincing."
I see why you weren't very impressed with his work. Very interesting points.
Perhaps the parables of Jesus, while using familiar forms were told with
something other in mind than exegesis of the Torah?
David Gowler wrote:
...You also have to explain the targums from your position. You also have
to explain the massive evidence for the use of Aramaic and Greek, and the
corresponding little evidence for(daily)usage of Hebrew.
You're right, I've got a lotta work to do. I don't doubt that this was a
multi-lingual/cultural society, but I find it difficult to believe that
Jesus didn't speak Hebrew, especially in light of the fact that viewing
the gospel materials in a Hebraic way greatly enhances our chance at
understanding what Jesus was talking about...as opposed to viewing Him as
some sort of hellenized philospher/magician/exorcist or some such thing...
so, I guess I have my work cut out for me ...
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful responses. It took me a few extra days
to respond; like everyone else : busy, busy.
By the way, I can't figure out why the Maccabees would name their kid
Alexander, but as I mentioned earlier, he could have had a Hebrew name too.
I know a family of Sephardic ancestry whose names are Susan, Eric, Michelle,
and Lisa who also have the names: Sultanna, Yitzak,Malka and Channa
respectivly. Perhaps this is nothing new?
And as far as Esther not having a direct mention of God--well, how about
the Acrostics hidden in the text?
All the Best,
Peter Cepuch
multi-cultural/lingual era etc.m
------------------------------
From: "John L. Moody" <moodyjl@bernstein.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 07:44:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
>It would seem that the only reasonable way out is to follow the example
>set, for example, here by Timster that basically what Matthew was trying
>for was an OT tie-in.
...unless we posit the supernatural element as an option ...
- --John
********************************************************
John L. Moody ** "Grace to you and peace
** from God our Father
** and the Lord Jesus
moodyjl@bernstein.com ** Christ." -- Eph. 1.2
********************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Lindsay J. Whaley" <Lindsay.J.Whaley@dartmouth.edu>
Date: 27 Jul 95 08:28:58 EDT
Subject: Re: lang. of Jesus
- --- Peter Cepuch wrote:
I still maintain that for those who took
Torah seriously, the link to Hebrew is vital. I think that viewing the gospel
accounts(esp. the synoptics)of the life of Jesus in these terms not only
gives us a clearer picture but also a sense of the very power of his words
to the Jewish mind to whom He was sent
- --- end of quoted material ---
I hope we're not beating a dead horse here, but I think it is important to keep
the issues straight. I agree completely that the Torah was a formative part of
the Jewish mind of Jesus' day, and that the Torah certainly has a link to
Hebrew! However, this still doesn't tell us much about the prevalence of
Hebrew in daily use. Consider some parallels: Mohawk in the longhouse
ceremony, Classical Arabic in Indonesia as the language of the Koran, Latin as
the language of the Christian church of days gone by, and Hebrew for American
Judaism. In each case there is an important link between language and
religious devotion. However, in none of the examples is the language spoken or
even understood by most of the religiously devote. Rather, there is a small
minority who are specially trained to use the language. Ergo, even if Jesus'
family was orthodox, this in no way entails a working knowledge of Hebrew.
Peter also mentions that there is evidence of "Hebrew narrative
'dressed' in raw Greek translation". His example is the kai egento + verb
construction. I would once again urge caution here. 1) this could just as
easily be described as "Aramaic narrative 'dressed' in Greek translation"; 2)
languages in contact influence each other in profound ways. This hardly entails
that majority of speakers of the affected language are also users of the
affecting language. That is, even if it could be demonstrated that the source
of kai egeneto was uniquely Hebrew, this tells us little about the degree of
usage of Hebrew by Jesus and his contemporaries. By way of example, consider
the following:
"Jean articulated the raison d'etre of the body politic on the senate floor".
Is this French dressed up as English? There are two french idioms, and 'floor'
is the only non-latinate content word.
As David Gowler mentioned, there is little direct evidence for the
daily use of Hebrew. I don't think the Torah-Hebrew link or the semiticisms in
Koine provide any more.
Lindsay Whaley
Dartmouth college
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 08:45:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
At 7:44 AM 27/07/95, John L. Moody wrote:
>>It would seem that the only reasonable way out is to follow the example
>>set, for example, here by Timster that basically what Matthew was trying
>>for was an OT tie-in.
>...unless we posit the supernatural element as an option ...
Fair enough. What I should have said is something to the effect that there
are three things that can be argued for: 1] a purely supernatural event; 2]
an astronomical event that was interpreted as "wonderous" and 3] Matthew
was attempting something more "metaphorical".
My point was only that #2 is ruled out. More to the point, event described
in Matthew (and in some of the previous discussions) it is simply
meaningless. (Decisions about the relative merits of #1 and #3 I leave to
the reader.)
Nichael - "...did I forget, forget to mention Memphis?
nichael@sover.net Home of Elvis, and the ancient Greeks."
------------------------------
From: Dennis Burke <dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 07:59:01 CDT
Subject: Re: BG: Hort and AlephB
I was indisposed yesterday. I hope it's not too late to add a bit more...
> Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> wrote:
>
> Last week Dennis Burke wrote asking me if any textual critic would blindly
> follow the reading of Aleph plus B. At that time I suggested that Hort did.
> Yesterday in reading Aland and Aland's _The Text of the New Testament_ (p.18),
> I ran across the following quote from Westcott and Hort's _Introduction_
> (vol. 2 of their GNT, p.225), <quote deleted>
I thought I asked for a modern textual critic, but in looking back at my post,
I see I was not specific. I had actually already considered Wescott and Hort,
but that was over 100 years ago so I discounted it. I also didn't consider
Tischendorf who followed Codex Sinaiticus very closely. Sorry for the
confusion.
> What worries me about this is that the current Standard Text is built on the
> text of W-H, with only significant variants examined, including those places
> where the orginal GNT varied from Nestle-Aland. But Nestle itself was made
> on a two out of three reading between W-H, Tischendorf (who highly valued
> Aleph), and Weiss (whom Aland and Aland say paid more attention to B than did
> Tischendorf). Aland and Aland point out that Nestle25 varied from W-H in only
> 558 places (p.26).
Actually, the word "only" is rather misleading. In the paragraph, Aland/Aland
state that, "...there are only 558 differences as compared with 1262
differences from Tischendorf." Thus, showing that N/A is closer to Wescott
and Hort than it is to Tischendorf. Later in the same paragraph Aland/Aland
state, "...(although 558 differences is by no means a negligible amount)."
As for only significant variants being examined, I don't know enough about the
case to be sure. However, it appears that the committee examined at least
2324 sets of variants. This comes from the prefaces of Metzger's _Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition_. The prefaces state that
UBS3 lists 1440 sets of variants and UBS4 adds 284 more sets of variants (but
273 were no longer listed/marked in UBS4, but were still variants considered
by the committee) and Metzger lists 600 more variants which were examined
by the committee, but not listed/marked. So, 1440 + 284 + 600 = 2324 sets
of variants examined by the committee. That's about 1 variant for every 3
verses in the New Testament. Now, it's possible that there may be more than
1 variant per verse, but it's quite a coincidence that the table on page 29
of Aland/Aland's _Text of the New Testament_ shows that 62.9% of the verses
of the New Testament are variant free (except for orthographical differences)
for the 7 editions of GNTs compared. These 7 are: N/A, Tischendorf, Vogels,
Wescott-Hort, von Soden, Merk and Bover. There may be many less-significant
variants to be examined, but examining over 2300 is, in my opinion, a pretty
good start.
> I have no doubt that the major decisions in the Standard Text are for the most
> part correct. Neither do I doubt that Aleph and B are for the most part good
> MSS. But contrary to W-H, they are not the neutral text. The majority of the
> text in GNT3/4 and NA26/27 was not done by the UBS Textual Committee; it was
> done by Hort (whom, if I remember right, did the basic work on W-H). It is
> not the major variants that I question; I wonder about the minor ones.
I agree (not that my agreement carries any weight) that Aleph and B are not
neutral. But, more importantly, it appears that Aland/Aland and Metzger (or
at least the UBS Textual Committee) agree that these are not neutral.
Aland/Aland say, "Actually there is no such thing as a "neutral" text of
the New Testament." I did not find such an explicit statement by Metzger,
but it appear clear from the following quote that he also does not consider
the texts to be neutral, "The Neutral text, as its question-begging name
implies, is, in the opinion of Wescott and Hort, the most free from later
corruption and mixture, and comes nearest to the text of the autographs."
And again, as you pointed out earlier, the NA26/27 and GNT3/4 side against
Aleph and B in several instances. Actually, Metzger points out that even
Wescott and Hort sided against Aleph and B in favor of "western" texts in
some cases as in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.
> That Hort was a great scholar I do not question; that his work can be
> accepted unexamined I do, especially in light of the above quote.
I agree whole-heartedly! Scholarship in any field MUST be peer-reviewed
before it is accepted. Whenever someone insists that you take them at
their word, beware. One of the things that impressed me most about textual
criticism is the openess/objectiveness that appears. It is refreshing.
I would like to thank everyone, especially Bruce Terry, for allowing me
to participate in these discussions. I do enjoy them and they encourage
me to continue studying (actually study harder). I'm just a beginner so
it helps me tremendously to be able to ask questions (even questions which
I present as statements in order to get more information) and have people
with many years of study and experience respond and teach me more. Thanks!
Dennis Burke
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 8:57:20 -0400
Subject: Easter Challenge
Though someone pointed out that (s)he felt Barker's challenge may not have
anything to do with Biblical Greek, I thought that if some of the
discrepancies he points out are the fault of translation, then reading or
commenting on the Greek text might resolve some of the difficulties. Is that
possible, or will the challenge stand? In the attachment (not just the
excerpt I printed in my message) Barker attacks the resurrection accounts at
a number of specific points that need to be addressed by inerrantists.
These "discrepancies" are probably nothing new to those who have done a
serious reading of the gospels. But if one abandons the inerrantist stand (I
don't think anyone can really define the term without qualification, and if
everyone qualifies what they mean differently--and they will, if you press
them with enough questions--what does the term then mean?) with its implied
understanding that the gospels are factual narratives and are accurate in all
their details, one must then adopt a less-sure explanation of what the
gospels are or purport to be. And as they become less "factual" and more
"theological" and "propagandistic," one then has to decide how one determines
what Jesus really said and did. If you go far enough down this road, you end
up with The Jesus Seminar.
Thanks for your responses and comments.
------------------------------
From: Jan.Haugland@uib.no
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 15:57:13 +0200
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Nichael wrote:
> Fair enough. What I should have said is something to the effect that there
> are three things that can be argued for: 1] a purely supernatural event; 2]
> an astronomical event that was interpreted as "wonderous" and 3] Matthew
> was attempting something more "metaphorical".
>
> My point was only that #2 is ruled out. More to the point, event described
> in Matthew (and in some of the previous discussions) it is simply
> meaningless. (Decisions about the relative merits of #1 and #3 I leave to
> the reader.)
If I understand you correctly, Nichael, you rule out a "natural" astronomical
explanation because some of those things described in Matthew rules it out.
Isn't is possible that while many things in Matthew has its basis in historical
facts, Matthew is changing the story to be more "metaphorical"? What I'm
pointing at, is some combination of your points 2) and 3).
As an example, we have a rather strange and infamous passage in Matthew
(Mt21:1-7) where he misread Zec9:9 and had Jesus ride on two different donkeys
at the same time! That doesn't mean that Jesus never rode into Jerusalem on a
donkey, which is attested by all the other gospels. But it means that Matthew
"metaphorized" known stories to fit them into what he thought to be a better
prophetic setting.
Cheers,
- - Jan
- --
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with
themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 09:24:35 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Easter Challenge
On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Eric Weiss wrote:
(excerpted):
> These "discrepancies" are probably nothing new to those who have done a
> serious reading of the gospels. But if one abandons the inerrantist stand (I
> don't think anyone can really define the term without qualification, and if
> everyone qualifies what they mean differently--and they will, if you press
> them with enough questions--what does the term then mean?) with its implied
> understanding that the gospels are factual narratives and are accurate in all
> their details, one must then adopt a less-sure explanation of what the
> gospels are or purport to be. And as they become less "factual" and more
> "theological" and "propagandistic," one then has to decide how one determines
> what Jesus really said and did. If you go far enough down this road, you end
> up with The Jesus Seminar.
Oh please, no more "domino" theories. Those of us who lived through the
Viet Nam conflict are up to here with all kinds. The above is a false
dilemma: either inerrancy or the Jesus Seminar. The JS is not normal
historical-judgment-making, but a politically-motivated effort more
concerned with polemical theology than historical criticism.
Long before, and everywhere outside of, the JS, historical
studies of the gospels have gone on and will go on, with scholars
attempting to sift the materials for the various influences reflected in
them, recognizing that they are invaluable historical records: of Jesus,
*and* of the handling of Jesus tradition in the first century (*both*
have to be reckoned with, and it is here that "inerrancy" fails).
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 10:18:19 -0400
Subject: Astronomy and Nativity
There was an article a few months back in BIBLE REVIEW I believe in which the
author argued that the "star" that the Magi followed was quite possibly an
angel. Cf. Job 38:7 where the parallelism could equate "the morning stars"
with "the sons of God" (i.e., "angels," as the NIV translates it). Matthew
does seem to be quite fond of angels, especially in the infancy accounts.
------------------------------
From: MikeWicker@aol.com
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:32:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Is there some reason why the "Star of Bethlehem" could not have been a Divine
creation fitted for the occaision like Jonah's whale?
On those same lines....why is it that the Magi recognized the star as a sign
from God that the Messiah had arrived? "We have seen His star in the East..."
(Daniel's prophecy?)
Mike Wicker, Pastor
Grace Bible Church
Elmer, NJ
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 09:33:51 -0700
Subject: "First of the Weeks"
Both Luke 24:1 and John 20:1 have _mia twn sabbatwn_ "first of
the weeks" for the Sunday of the Resurrection. Why is "sabbatwn"
in the plural? There has been an argument that this is a
reference to the first of the "seven weeks to Pentecost".
However, "sabbatwn" in the plural does seem to be idiomatic
for a singular meaning (Acts 16:13, if all English translations
as "the sabbath day" are correct)--but why?
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 09:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote:
> Fair enough. What I should have said is something to the effect that there
> are three things that can be argued for: 1] a purely supernatural event; 2]
> an astronomical event that was interpreted as "wonderous" and 3] Matthew
> was attempting something more "metaphorical".
>
> My point was only that #2 is ruled out. More to the point, event described
> in Matthew (and in some of the previous discussions) it is simply
> meaningless. (Decisions about the relative merits of #1 and #3 I leave to
> the reader.)
A fourth possibility is that #2 and #3 are in view.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 11:59 CDT
Subject: Easter Events
A conceptual point: One need not be a proponent of
biblical "inerrancy" to inquire about the harmony of
the resurrection narratives. (George Ladd, e.g., was
not defending inerrancy when he offered a harmony in
*I Believe in the Resurrection*, pp. 91-94.) As
historians, we naturally inquire whether multiple
accounts "agree" in the events and the order of events
they describe. It's noteworthy that Mark (14:56,59)
makes a big deal of the fact that the testimonies of
Jesus's accusers did not "agree." Similarly, historians
will naturally ask whether the events and orders of
events described by the gospel writers "agree," even
if we acknowledge redactional components. We can
plausibly draw a workable distinction between (a)
the events and orders of events described by the
evangelists and (b) the various meanings/interpretations
of (a) endorsed by the evangelists. Redactional
components will encompass (b) but will not exhaust
(a). Some friends of inerrancy have given a bad name
to attempts at harmony, and this may explain the disdain
some NT scholars manifest toward any concern for harmony.
Still, so long as redactional components don't fully
determine historical narratives in the gospels, the
aforementioned distinction between (a) and (b) will
leave room for intelligible questions about harmony.
Hence, two extremes are regrettable: the extreme of
exhaustive harmony stemming from a doctrine of
inerrancy and the extreme of disregarding natural
historical questions about harmony in multiple
narratives.--Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 10:22:19 PDT
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
nichael@sover.net wrote:
> Fair enough. What I should have said is something to the effect that there
> are three things that can be argued for: 1] a purely supernatural event; 2]
> an astronomical event that was interpreted as "wonderous" and 3] Matthew
> was attempting something more "metaphorical".
>
> My point was only that #2 is ruled out.
The argument about the rotation of the earth making it impossible
to follow the star doesn't entirely rule out astronomical phenomena
if the phenomenon is always localized at one time of day.
E.g. the observation of Sirius rising (to predict Nile flooding) was
always made at sunrise.
In any case you haven't ruled out atmospheric phenomena, e.g. aurora
borealis, ball lightning, marsh gas, UFOs, angels in geosynchronous orbit,
or blimps loaded with Greek fire. Such possibilities are likely
to require some divine meddling to make them happen, so they are
less attractive to philosophical naturalists who approve of predictable
planetary conjunctions.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 13:23:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Larry Swain wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote:
> > Fair enough. What I should have said is something to the effect that there
> > are three things that can be argued for: 1] a purely supernatural event; 2]
> > an astronomical event that was interpreted as "wonderous" and 3] Matthew
> > was attempting something more "metaphorical".
> > My point was only that #2 is ruled out. More to the point, [the] event
> > described in Matthew (and in some of the previous discussions) is simply
> > meaningless.
> A fourth possibility is that #2 and #3 are in view.
I guess I would have to say that I consider this a special case of #3;
that is, the distinction between 1] a "metaphor" (taken broadly) and 2] a
record of an historical event, combined with a metaphor and rewritten to
confirm to a theological need, is, I'm afraid, rather more subtle than my
mind can handly this late on a Thursday afternoon. ;-)
In any case, the original point --that as a record of a real, physical
event Matthew's description cannot be taken seriously-- is not affected.
N
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 13:57:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Paul Moser wrote:
> In "Jesus and the Cynics," *Journal of Religion* 74
> (1994), 453-75, Hans Dieter Betz concludes: "The presumed
> presence of Cynics in Galilean society in which Jesus
> lived is mostly fanciful conjecture.
I tend to agree with the thrust of Betz's argument, but it seems, in
places, to go too far in the other direction. "Galilean society in which
Jesus lived?" Are we placing Jesus into an intellectual, cultural, social
vacuum? Are we limiting "influence" to direct physical contact or direct
influence? Or are we willing to talk about a more realistic intermingling
of indirect (and possibly direct) cultural and social discourses? What
exactly is "presence?" Was there absolutely no "contact" at all in any
way?
I don't have a copy of this article, and Paul Moser made no comment on
it that might have placed it into a context of discussion -- thus a
pronouncement story with no context. Who is Betz reacting against?
Mack? Crossan? Downing? Vaage? All of the above, including other
members of the Jesus Seminar?
A parallel argument (and incorrect) could be made for Jesus' "contact with
"hellenistic Judaism: A colleague from Hebrew University (Jerusalem), who
is also here at Yale for the summer, was just yesterday morning talking
with me about the (some recent) discoveries at Sepphoris -- including
examples of an extremely hellenized Judaism, etc. No proof of direct
contact between Jesus and that hellenized Judaism (just six miles away
from him in Sepphoris) exists. Does that mean that Jesus never came into
contact with *any* of those elements in *amy* way? Of course not.
Does it not seem likely that Jesus would have taken part in a dialogical
social and cultural discourse (in a form of "subcultural rhetoric," to
use Johnson's term)?
>evidence for Cynicism is limited to Gadara and Tyre, Hellenistic cities
> outside of Galilee, though smaller cities existed in
> Galilee itself, especially Sepphoris. It is, therefore,
> wrong to make up for our lack of evidence by projecting
> a sophisticated urban culture with Cynics into every part
> of Galilee and then to place a Cynic-inspired sayings
> source Q together with the Jesus movement in this Galilee"
> (pp. 471-2).
"projecting a sophisticated urban culture with Cynics into every part of
Galilee." -- There is an old saying that a good argumentative technique is
to call a cat a "tiger" and then it becomes easier to demonstrate that
it's a "paper tiger."
Of course Betz is correct in his very carefully-worded statement (note the
use of "sophisticated" and "every"), but there are many different levels
and types of cultural interaction and discourse. I also wonder how much
"evidence" cynics would have generated in the Galilee anyway.
Let me be clear, as ole Lyndon used to say: I disagree strongly with
those members of the Jesus Seminar who turn Jesus into a Cynic sage with
"evidence" from a "first level" of a "Q Gospel."
*On the other hand*, it has been quite clear for many years, it seems to
me, that the Galilee was not the "culturally untainted" backwater some
people want to make it out to be (for mainly theological reasons). And
not all of the evidence for indirect, cynic-type influences can be
discounted.
I hyperbolize because it seems to me that both extreme positions of Jesus
being "purely" Jewish or hellenistic (e.g., cynic sage) are not only
simplistic, but clearly wrong.
I wonder if Betz's position is more nuanced than this snippet from his
article might make it appear.
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 14:14:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: lang. of Jesus
On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Pete Cepuch wrote:
> multi-lingual/cultural society, but I find it difficult to believe that
> Jesus didn't speak Hebrew, especially in light of the fact that viewing
> the gospel materials in a Hebraic way greatly enhances our chance at
> understanding what Jesus was talking about...as opposed to viewing Him as
> some sort of hellenized philospher/magician/exorcist or some such thing...
I won't talk about the language issue again, besides suggesting that
the "Jewishness" of Jesus does not *necessitate* facility in the Hebrew
language.
>From my perspective, it seems clear that all first-century Judaism was
"hellenistic" to a greater or lesser degree. I think that can be clearly
demonstrated.
So the choice between "either Jewish" or "hellenized philosopher" is a
false dichotomy -- the historical reality presents us with a continuum.
My previous posting argued that there was a continuum of experiences in
first-century Palestine that engaged hellenistic influences in a variety
of types and ways. Jesus could not have "escaped" that; the discussions
center around how much engagement and on what levels that experience would
have taken place.
> And as far as Esther not having a direct mention of God--well, how about
> the Acrostics hidden in the text?
I guess that would depend on one's view of "direct mention."
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #802
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu